Sept-oct 03 report.qxd

BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONS AND HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH
The threat of biological and chemical terrorism highlights a growing tension in research ethics
between respecting the interests of individuals and safeguarding and protecting the common good. But what
it actually means to protect the common good is rarely scrutinized. There are two conceptions of the
common good that provide very different accounts of the limits of permissible medical research. Decisions
about the limits of acceptable medical research in defense of the common good should be carried out only
Chemical and biological weapons are rightly re- could also be surprisingly low-tech solutions to de-
garded with a special sense of horror. Their
livery and dispersal. All this makes chemical and bio-
effects can be both devastating and indiscrim-
logical weapons uniquely potent tools for insurgency
inate, taking the harshest toll on the most vulnerable
classes of noncombatants. A biological attack may
Responding to the threat of chemical and biologi-
not even be discovered until long after a disease has
cal weapons raises complex but important ethical
spread through a population. Moreover, chemical
questions. In a very real sense, the bulwark of last de-
and biological weapons are especially attractive alter-
fense against such agents must be mounted, not atop
natives for groups that lack the ability to construct
a wall or in a distant trench, but within the very bod-
nuclear weapons. The 1995 release of sarin gas into
ies of military and civilian personnel. Questions
the Tokyo subway by the Aum Shinri Kyo group sug-
about the limits of what can be justified in the name
gested that effective delivery devices may be harder to
of defense were raised during the first Gulf War.2 The
procure than the chemical agents themselves, but the
controversy surrounded a waiver that the Depart-
2001 anthrax attack in the United States, which used
ment of Defense sought from the Food and Drug
the postal service as a delivery device, showed there
Administration that would allow it to administerpyridostigmine and botulinum toxoid vaccine toU.S. military personnel without their consent. Theconsent waiver was granted, but the vaccine was
Alex John London, “Threats to the Common Good: BiochemicalWeapons and Human Subjects Research,”
made available only on a voluntary basis. As the pos-
sibility materializes that chemical and biological
it rarely receives critical scrutiny, sets
tially in times of relative peace and se-
specification of when this is the case.
ble medical research in times of crisis.
often muted by the exigencies of war.
tion” and the “generic interests view.”
sent in a social climate that is increas-
Normative claim: There are circum-
18 H A S T I N G S C E N T E R R E P O R T
Triggering condition: Practical constraint: munity, conceived of as an entity that
whole. Jonas’s strategy is to argue that
ments do not deny that civil liberties areimportant. It claims only that we may
To paraphrase Cicero, law is often muted by the exigencies of war.
ishing in every way.”9 As he puts it, “a
uals and violations of their civil liber-
The normative claim draws a con- search, therefore, because it is the less likely to destabilize the commu-
ed ‘national priorities’ as a rationale
right and, potentially, patients’ civil
strict position is easily associated with
nient position,” which is easily associ-
sus,” with the special epistemic, or at
dissenters as rational or reasonable.
20 H A S T I N G S C E N T E R R E P O R T
mate basic interests of all parties.in being able to develop and exercisetheir basic intellectual and affective ca-pacities and to pursue significant rela-tionships with each other. The goal is
individuals as a result of their particu-
Although appeals to the common good are familiar, it is rarely
clear just what “the common good” actually refers to.
cise of their basic capacities for agency
individual’s pursuit of his or her par-
It is crucially important, therefore, tinguishes all of an individual's inter- view of the basic capacities of
H A S T I N G S C E N T E R R E P O R T 21
tion. Just as all citizens have an inter-
Rawls's "justice as fairness," by con-
threaten interests that citizens share in
biases in the laws or their execution.does not diminish the justification
terests of current trial participants in a
vance the generic interests of both.
role in ensuring that clinical trials re-
The presumption should be that individuals decide for themselves
tion on agents’ control over their eco-
terest in having their lives go well—in
sure that trials protect these interests.
it is possible to design a trial that fully
be justified only if it is absolutely nec-
clinically significant benefit or protec-
public safety, such as police officers or
24 H A S T I N G S C E N T E R R E P O R T
7. J.D. Moreno, “Bioethics after the Ter-
tive to questions concerning distribution of
American Journal of Bioethics 2, no. 1
welfare between individuals. In principle, if
persecuting a minority yields a higher aggre-gate utility than equal treatment, then the
8. H. Jonas, “Philosophical Reflections
persecution is justifiable. As Rawls puts it,
Daedalus 98, no. 2 (1969): 219-47, at 221.
classical utilitarianism treats the political
community as a single entity, thereby focus-
ing moral and political deliberation on how
best to maximize the overall well-being of
Human Subject Protections in U.S. Medical
Justice, 22-33.). Thus it appears to target the
Research,” JAMA 24 (1999):1947-1952.
corporate conception of the common good.
limits such as those sketched above.
to avoid this pitfall. David Brink’s “objective
utilitarianism” is intended to provide a con-
cal theories. Here, I have been trying to
trast with subjective theories that reduce
show that while there can be disagreements
human welfare to mental states such as plea-
over strict and lenient interpretations of the
sure. Brink proposes a non-reductive, natu-
triggering condition and these positions can
ralistic account of human welfare whose pri-
easily be associated with different compre-
hensive moral and political theories, both
pursuit and realization by agents of reason-
interpretations presume tacit acceptance of
able life projects and the development of
personal and social relationships of mutual
13. To his credit, Jonas raises this issue
Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics
(“Philosophical Reflections on Experiment-
1989), 230-45, 262-90). Brink argues that
what I am calling the corporate conception.
his account is distribution-sensitive because
It is therefore appropriate to read Jonas’s ar-
basic goods such as health, nutrition, and
gument as dialectical in nature. That is, he is
education, are either necessary conditions
claiming that even if we assume the corpo-
for the existence of value, or they are all-
can still provide a sturdy foundation for in-
pursue a wide range of individual life plans
Conflict Resolution 9, no. 2 (1965): 200-
(272),and, claims Brink, this definition of
welfare does not permit trade offs between
2. J.M. Schofer, “Violations of Informed
14. When goals or ends conflict, an inte-
access to basic goods for increases in social
grative solution is one that modifies those
utility (D.O. Brink, “Mill’s Deliberative
1657; E.G. Howe and E.D. Martin, “Treat-
goals and ends so as to satisfy the underlying
legitimate interests that provide the ratio-
fairs 21, no. 1 (1992): 67-103). This is a
no. 2 (1991): 21-24; G.J. Annas and M.A.
generic interests conception of the common
ends. See J.Z. Rubin, D.G. Pruitt, S.H.
good, in the sense that it defines the com-
Report 21, no. 2 (1991): 24-27; R.J. Levine,
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate,
mon good in terms of a set of interests that
and Settlement, second edition (New York:
3. J. Dao and J. Miller, “Pentagon Shifts
and with respect to every other member of
sessions and Freedom, ed. A. Kontos (Toron-
to: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 39-
Office, “Smallpox Vaccination: Implemen-
April2003). “Update: Adverse Events Fol-
tional constraints, see E.J. Emanuel, D.
Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment,”Philosophy and Public Affairs 29, no. 4
Wendler, and C. Grady, “What Makes Clin-
21. E.S. Anderson, “What Is the Point of
good may be overlooked or dismissed be-cause its formulations are easily confused
5. W.J. Broad and J. Miller, “Report Pro-
22. A. Pollack and W.J. Broad, “Anti-Ter-
vides New Details of Soviet Smallpox Acci-
utilitarianism resembles the corporate con-ception because it identifies the good with a
subjective mental state, such as pleasure,
23. M.E. Frisina, “The Offensive-Defen-
and then evaluates states of affairs in terms
sive Distinction in Military Biological Re-
of the social aggregate of that good. A basic
objection to classical utilitarianism is that its
focus on aggregate utility makes it insensi-

SPP 2013-14 Board of Directors Shirt Tales September 2013 visit our website at www.shallowfordpreschool.net Director’s Report Welcome back! I am thrilled to have the opportunity to serve as the Acting Director at SPP for the 2013-2014 school year! I began my experience with SPP by working Summer Fun camps over 24 years ago! I am a former high school teacher and assis-t